The Terrorist's Son

The word 'terrorism'  now makes us think of this man and this action

A popular example for students to discuss is usually referred to as the Terrorist's Son. It poses the problem of torture - when, if ever, is it justified to use torture? It goes like this... 


The Security Services have captured a terrorist who has planted a dirty nuclear bomb in the middle of London. If detonated, it will kill 200,000 people and maim and permanently ruin the lives of many more. His four-year old son was captured with him. The boy for complex personal reasons means everything to his terrorist father and is the only hope the security services have of discovering where the bomb has been hidden and when it is due to explode. All other means have been exhausted.


Should the security services now proceed to use torture on the four-year old in front of his father in order to extract the information that is so desperately needed?


If your answer is 'Yes', how would you justify this decision? If your answer is 'No', how would you justify this decision? What might we learn about morality from these two very different responses?

The crew of the Enola Gay that dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima